X-Plane 11 and the "new" modeling of propwash/ slipstream effects...

[Guest deleted@50488]

Posted at the X-Plane developers Blog by Austin Meyer, the brain behind X-Plane's FDM...

 

http://developer.x-plane.com/2017/01/x-plane-11-propeller-modeling/

 

I wonder if a similar approach is being used in IL.2 ...

[ZachariasX]

Posted at the X-Plane developers Blog by Austin Meyer, the brain behind X-Plane's FDM...

 

http://developer.x-plane.com/2017/01/x-plane-11-propeller-modeling/

 

I wonder if a similar approach is being used in IL.2 ...

Not sure if a combat sim is the right place for such experiments. Any ressource you use for computing effects like that you have not elsewhere. Would you be ready to, say, reduce possible total numbers of planes per mission for such?

 

Besides, the effect mentioned on the plane is speed dependent. The faster you go, the finer the angle of air blowing towards the empanage. At slow speeds it is even worse, as ambient wind "blows away the propwash". AoA also has an effect for the same reason.

[II./JG77_Manu*]

I'd rather have high object count both on the ground and in the air (tank battles, bomber formations) then some hyperrealistic prop wash physics effect - if i have to choose one of them.

[DD_Arthur]

I'd rather have high object count both on the ground and in the air (tank battles, bomber formations) then some hyperrealistic prop wash physics effect - if i have to choose one of them.

 

I think the dev's agree with you Manu.  Currently, prop wash/slipstream effects in BoS only work off-line.

[Guest deleted@50488]

Currently, prop wash/slipstream effects in BoS only work off-line.

 

??? Can you ellaborate please ?

[Lusekofte]

Got X plane 10, bought it 6 month ago. For the choppers. I did not know a 11 was up and coming. They say chopper FM and features are among the best in business 

[6./ZG26_5tuka]

Got the demo and am not very impressed by it. Graphics are admireable (unless you notice weird roads and floating cars on ground) but the FM is not a high seller.

 

I extensively tested their ASK21 and must say I'm impressed by how inaccurate it is, from wrong trim range to wrong cg to the fact you can open your canopy midair whille pulling loops. The Cessna also wasn't totally believeabble but felt quite solid in comparison.

 

Might be stil one of the better civil sims out there but still doesn't feel as nice and lively as BoS.

[ZachariasX]

Between FSX, P3D and Xplane (and also DCS, BoX etc.) there is little to choose in terms of "FM quality". It all depends on how much love you give the individual aircraft as a designer. There is hardly a case where a systemic limit of the sim itself makes the big difference. If you want it, you can make great stuff in all of them. You can also mess up (see Fw threads etc.).

 

As the sims are different in look as well as in feel, the customer at least has a choice of what he deems real.

[ZachariasX]

Got the demo and am not very impressed by it. Graphics are admireable (unless you notice weird roads and floating cars on ground) but the FM is not a high seller.

 

I extensively tested their ASK21 and must say I'm impressed by how inaccurate it is, from wrong trim range to wrong cg to the fact you can open your canopy midair whille pulling loops. The Cessna also wasn't totally believeabble but felt quite solid in comparison.

 

Might be stil one of the better civil sims out there but still doesn't feel as nice and lively as BoS.

Stock planes are usually crap. Good modules cost a lot, as they incorporate lots of work. Someone has to pay for that. When you buy Xplane, you buy the sim. They give you "some planes" that you can actually use the sim right away. Making Xplane or especially P3D a great looking sim with fantastic planes, you can easily spend another 1000$.

[kestrel79]

I've played FSX, X-Plane. While it is fun to fly over the entire real world, or you're own neck of the woods those sims always lack the "feeling" of flying to me, only sim that gives me that is BoS

 

I'm not a big add on or mod guy either so not willing to spend hundreds to make a civil sim look good without being able to shoot someone else down with some guns or bombs

[DD_Arthur]

??? Can you ellaborate please ?

 

Well...what can I say?  Fly a mission in the QMB with a friendly HE-111.  Fly a single-seater yourself and get up close behind him and experience the effect.   Very good with a FFB stick too. 

 

Try it online with a friendly bomber = no effect.

[Bearfoot]

Got X plane 10, bought it 6 month ago. For the choppers. I did not know a 11 was up and coming. They say chopper FM and features are among the best in business 

 

Hmmm. Who is "they", might I ask?

 

Because, by all accounts, that title goes to DCS, in particular the UH-1H and Mi-8. 

[Guest deleted@50488]

Well...what can I say?  Fly a mission in the QMB with a friendly HE-111.  Fly a single-seater yourself and get up close behind him and experience the effect.   Very good with a FFB stick too. 

 

Try it online with a friendly bomber = no effect.

 

Ok, I understand now what you were referring to - thx!

And thank you all guys for all of your comments so far.

For some reason I started playing DCS World and IL.2 BoX, and can't really get back to any "civil" flightsim other than ELITE IFR .... The immersion, even out of combat situations, specially in IL.2, is unique.

 

I put the flight dynamics accuracy, in as long as it is possible within the limitations of a PC-based sim, in the very 1st place, and for instance IL.2 gives me that as well as a unique light, and scenery, but also weather, that really make me feel like flying for real :-)

 

XP11 is promising though, as much as Aerofly FS2, but they're still miles away from the thrill this two combat sims I keep using provide.

[ZachariasX]

Ok, I understand now what you were referring to - thx!

And thank you all guys for all of your comments so far.

For some reason I started playing DCS World and IL.2 BoX, and can't really get back to any "civil" flightsim other than ELITE IFR .... The immersion, even out of combat situations, specially in IL.2, is unique.

 

I put the flight dynamics accuracy, in as long as it is possible within the limitations of a PC-based sim, in the very 1st place, and for instance IL.2 gives me that as well as a unique light, and scenery, but also weather, that really make me feel like flying for real :-)

 

XP11 is promising though, as much as Aerofly FS2, but they're still miles away from the thrill this two combat sims I keep using provide.

I find it also amazing what they achived with BoX. As it comes, it really has a compelling mix of visuals and flight model.

 

FSX in turn, as it comes "out of the box" is just 10 year old stuff. Visuals are kept such that an entire globe can be rendered (from the data stored on two DVDs), not just a specific area. Nothing that could be compared to BoX.

 

FSX, Xplane etc. out of the box will give you functionality, not "a great feel of flight".

 

If you for instance want weather in a sim like FSX, you will spend a sum comparable to buying full BoS, most likely even more than that. A weather generator will cost like $50, so are the cloud textures that make the difference. If you use them, you will see the difference. Dynamic weather, real time weather, athmospheric layers, it just takes everything to a whole new level. But you'll also painfully realize that flight sims are indeed an expensive hobby. As you have to patch together your sim to your liking, it's not for everyone and you have to know what you are doing.

 

In BoX, we get for comparably little money a package of everything and it reasonably runs on most rigs. It truly is a great product.

[Guest deleted@50488]

Couldn't agree more with you Zacharias... I just wish they could build a civil sim...

[Lusekofte]

 

 

must say I'm impressed by how inaccurate it is,

 

Nicely put

 

Hmmm. Who is "they", might I ask?

 

Because, by all accounts, that title goes to DCS, in particular the UH-1H and Mi-8. 

 

 I agree with you, I do not fly x plane because I feel the same. They are Helisimmer group in FB . They recommended DCS and X plane. I wanted civilian missions, and remembered flight simulator missions like helipads on top of skyscrapers and taxi flying. I spend much of my time sling loading with the MI 8 , and fly fast and dangerous with the Huey. I will not buy X plane 11 , mostly because I do not like the view using trackir Got the schwinn chopper in XP 10, and it is a very good module

[Bearfoot]

 I agree with you, I do not fly x plane because I feel the same. They are Helisimmer group in FB . They recommended DCS and X plane. I wanted civilian missions, and remembered flight simulator missions like helipads on top of skyscrapers and taxi flying. I spend much of my time sling loading with the MI 8 , and fly fast and dangerous with the Huey. I will not buy X plane 11 , mostly because I do not like the view using trackir Got the schwinn chopper in XP 10, and it is a very good module

 

Yep! The Huey and Magnificent Eight in DCS are scarily good! And fun to fly ... with or without guns. Like you, I love the transport missions. And transport missions under fire are something else! 

 

By the schwinn in Xplane, do you mean the EC 135?

[Lusekofte]

 

 

By the schwinn in Xplane, do you mean the EC 135?

 

Probably that one small two seater swiss one I think, good reviews and so on.

We should meet up in DCS some time flying. I feel pretty confident in the MI 8 , and a little in the Huey. I feel I cannot divide my time in both, because staying good means keep  to one 

[Bearfoot]

Probably that one small two seater swiss one I think, good reviews and so on.

We should meet up in DCS some time flying. I feel pretty confident in the MI 8 , and a little in the Huey. I feel I cannot divide my time in both, because staying good means keep  to one 

That would be great. I am MUCH more comfortable in the Huey.

 

I do not even really know how to start-up the Mi-8! After a cheat auto-start, I can get her in the air and move her around, but very much a newbie. As in crashing the bird half the time.

 

The Huey, on the other hand, feels like an old comfortable shoe! Such an iconic aircraft. Unfortunately, I've been away from the stick for six months now, and just got back into the saddle. I find that many skills are perishable, and my pick-up-into-hover and landings are .... rough. I don't quite crash, and I eventually get to where I want to be (even if it means I have to hover taxi a ways to the pad because I over/under shot), but it ain't pretty! Still have not mastered the sling loads. Anyway, starting next week, I am going to being refresher training. Hopefully I can catch up back to where I was quickly!

[Lusekofte]

I am fairly well flying under open roof and taxi behind taxiing helis in offline missions with the huey. So I think I can follow you in some degree in it. I just haven't done sling load with it. Much more agile and responsive I can imagine I need a bit more of a steady hand. 

Edited January 7, 2017 by 216th_LuseKofte

[JG4_Sputnik]

I'd rather have those graphics/atmospheric lighting from X Plane. When you see it you kinda think you play a game from 10 years ago with BoS.

 

And yes this is out of the box.

Edited January 8, 2017 by JG4_Sputnik

[6./ZG26_5tuka]

It wins in graphics but loses in everything else. BoS runs many more physical calculation than X-Plane (which doesn't even have a simplistic damage model) and has a very fluid sound simulation model (another point where X-Plane's shell is starting to crack).

 

For VFR flying it still looks promising given some of the issues will get fixed and appropiate content developed (like a reaosnable behaving and functional glider). If it will ever feauture a solid MP (shared cockpit, player controlled glider towing, flying competitions) it could likely win me over to civil aviation again.

[Guest deleted@50488]

IMHO, even in graphics X-Plane 10, and now 11, lags considerably behind IL.2 BoX.

 

I have never experienced such an immersive atmosphere as in IL2 BoX. Also the atmospheric effects, and I refer to the turbulence and wind shear, are for instance far superior to what we get in default X-Plane or MSFS...

 

The only problem is the hazy look of the far horizon, which I believe is due to an optimization option by 1C /777 because otherwise the game would play slow on older rigs...

 

I wish I had the skies, clouds, Sun and even the Moon with it's precise phases for any date and time in X-Plane like I do in IL.2 BoX ( and in DCS too, although I prefer by far the atmospheric rendiring, and those usnique cloud streets we sometimes get in IL.2 ).

 

The, flight dynamics wise, X-Plane is a joke compared to IL.2, sometimes even worst than what can be done with some external code for FSX...

Edited January 8, 2017 by jcomm

[JG4_Sputnik]

The "fake" horizon in BoS turns me off the most. It has a good FM but to say that a realistc rendering of the map, atmosphere and horizon needs too much resources is wrong I think. Other sims have it, BoS has just an outdated engine although they've managed to get quite impressive results out of it.

 

However these days I switch pretty often between all the sims there are, and every time I start BoS I get the feeling of an "outdated" visual impression in general (even on Ultra). I don't mean a particular thing, but all together. It just "feels" outdated for me in comparison to other sims, not like 2016. The DCS Normandie trailer sums it up quite good... But this might just be me.

[ram0506]

I'd rather have those graphics/atmospheric lighting from X Plane.

 

Those photorealistic textures look really nice, when seen from altitudes of a few hundred feed. But on the ground it doesn`t look too impressive.

[JG4_Sputnik]

I know what you mean. However I think XPlane does a good job of combining those high res textures with 3D objecst. 

Check at about 5min20:

 

I can't put my finger on it exactely, but whenever I see BoS I get the feeling of "handpainted" and DCS Nevada, Normandie (and Caucasus to a degree) have more a "photo" feeling to them. It just looks more beliavable to me. Which doesn't affect gameplay but I am very for immersion and in that regard I get more out of the other sims.

 

That doesn't mean that BoS is a bad game, I just want a perfect world where all combat flight sims have the most recent tech available For example, the clouds (in near distance) and the 3D models of the planes are top notch in BoS. But the landscape itself, let alone the towns (Stalingrad!) look very outdated to me.

 

And it makes me think that if todays games like XPlane look that convincing then I don't know if BoS ever can catch up to that.

Edited January 8, 2017 by JG4_Sputnik

[JG4_Sputnik]

Here an other good one:

 

And don't tell me you don't want to fly over a Russia looking that good in BoS. 

[6./ZG26_5tuka]

I know what you mean. However I think XPlane does a good job of combining those high res textures with 3D objecst. 

 

I can't put my finger on it exactely, but whenever I see BoS I get the feeling of "handpainted" and DCS Nevada, Normandie (and Caucasus to a degree) have more a "photo" feeling to them.

Yes, the artistic ground textures in BoS/BoM are arguably not the best visual representation for real terrain which I perfectly agree on, but the autogen object system X-Plane uses has also issues (only have seen Seattle due to Demo version restrictions, but there are floating cars, buildings on streets and very weird road lines that do no represent realistic streets at all).

Also checked for Frankfurt area which I'm more familiar with and it looks terrible lacking any modern architecture. The airport itself also looks rather underwhelming as well. It's likely less accurate than the "hand painted" city of Moscow or the Stalingrad industrial area in Il-2.

 

Edit: Attached screen to show what I mean.

Edited January 8, 2017 by 6./ZG26_5tuka

[JG4_Sputnik]

Yeah that looks bad... I think this is because they have to "autogen" everything in order to fill literally the whole world.

A good way would be if there was a mix between the both techniques, since combat sims usually take place on a rather small area.

 

To be honest I'm just a bit jealous to other gamers (call of duty for example) who always can count on top notch visuals every year (but that's the only thing^^). But I think this comes with a niche product like BoS, you have to make cuts here and there. But I'm just no sure if there wasn't more potential in it... 

 

Often comes the argument that flight sims cover such a big terrain and therefore the visuals can not be that good. But I think DCS and XPlane prove that it can if you only have an engine built for it.

[ZachariasX]

The BoX "play pens" are rather big compared to other "open world games", considering they are VFR maps with everything placed by hand. Not the autogen stuff that covers 99.9% of the world in Xplane or FSX/P3D.

 

The problem in BoX is you cannot go beyond the playpen and you even have to fake the horizon. (At 10'000 m altitude, you can see far.) This is not bad per se, as rendering performance is drastically higher in BoX than FSX/Xplane/P3D.

 

Where it really bites you is just the case when your playpen is smaller than the areas of your mission. BoX as it is can never be a base for simulating 8^th Air Force.

 

Bottom line is,  you need very large areas/maps for such with with very few places that you are going to visit in detail. In a BoX map, all places and areas on a map are treated similarly with the same priority. But in order to fill an entire globe with textures and structures, autogen is your only chance to do it. For several reasons:

For once, there are places on earth, where details are not so important (think most of Antarctica, would you want "true" 30cm resolution texturing?), the other is simple space requirement.

 

BoS/M has currently ~12 GB of textures etc for their maps for, say, 100'000 km² terrain. To do the same for the whole earth (148'940'000 km² land area), you would need about 18 terabytes of scenery. Roughly multiply by 1500. Everything that we have as scenery. including the costs to make it.

 

In other words, if we had $ 10 USD worth of maps in BoX (how cheap of me!), we had to pay 1'500 x $10 = $15'000 to get the whole earth.

 

Thus, we have autogen. And autogen is good, except for points of interest.

 

Making points of interest nicely, that is being done. We see that in the videos linked above. But just don't look too closely. If you want it right, you pay for it. This is why default sceneries are always covering just the minimum in detail. Delivering functionality required for a sim is a task big enough.

 

To make a world neat in P3D using ORBX sceneries, you need at least a GF1080 and at 1440p you'll get 20+ fps over dense areas such as San Francisco. Weather/clouds can take a toll as well.

 

You add 10 GB of could textures. The first thing you do. After all, most of what you are seeing in fight are, in fact, clouds. Then you need something that does make "real weather and real winds out of those. Costs more, but vastly increases what the original sim does. Then go on with nice planes. Good ones are as expensive as in DCS.

 

Xplane and P3D have modern DX11 rendering. Especially P3D has become extremely GPU heavy as much as it got prettier, as the GPU loads the entire scene. In FSX, GPU does little and FPS mainly scale with clock frequency of your CPU core running the fiber thread. In P3D you see how soon you get GPU limited. (Just reduce window size in flight and see if FPS go up. Is so, you're GPU limited.)

 

Xplane, I remember when it came out and its first iterations... Great proof of principle for the ones that exactly knew what do do with it. Like Linux in the early 90's. But for the user, just a pain. Now over the years it got very usable. The problem is that it is run by a very particular crowd that think it is something better, just by principle (like a Macintosh/Amiga/WTF was always better per se) and they go on like that, instead of making it something else than just FSX. But no, it is, oi, so much more realistic! Truly different. (Is it? Yeah, foils n stuff...*yawn*)

 

They could have made it a base for sims like BoX, also DX11, but where you can actually fly 1500 km distance and you had a real horizon and, imagine, you could even have planes with guns and use those guns! But no. An open environment... that could be a game software renderer and developer kit like the Unreal engine or CryEngine. But no, somebody thinks it is just better and that is good enough. They could easily have won the market for combat sims. With the overhead of planes and AI in mind, you could have made the engine such that it would work. CFS, anyone? That worked on MS Flight Simulator.

 

Having such a base for combat sims would give is the B-17, as Jason mentioned before.

 

[MiloMorai]

I'd rather have those graphics/atmospheric lighting from X Plane. When you see it you kinda think you play a game from 10 years ago with BoS.

 

And yes this is out of the box.

Yes very nice graphics. Did you see the car making the left turn at ~1:50?

 

Why is the jet exhaust angled upward when the engine is angled down?

[II./JG77_Manu*]

I think this Xplane11 stuff looks superb in general, apart from those odd places. General graphics, as seen in the New York video are incredible. However the user is only getting 30fps with a 1080. I think folks would go crazy with those requirements for BoS. I think it's not that important - yet - to have such incredible graphics. I think the ground textures and scenery are OK'ish in BoS.

The real problem in BoS is the bubble you are moving in, that makes everything look shite (worse then in 1946 or - god forbid - Falcon 4 BMS from a 1999 engine) when it's further away then 9,5km. This is rather unacceptable for a modern sim. Alongside the artificial haze at the Horizon...in my opinion this is the first issue they have to work out with DX11 now. The landscape rendering distance in DCS can be put up to 300km.

[Feathered_IV]

Those are satellite photos stitched together with simple trees and buildings on top.  Things are reasonably textured and detailed around airfields and key sites, but the rest of the environment is best seen at long distance. 

[JG4_Sputnik]

Well it's not as if BoX has a very complex ground to simulate - I mean the tundra around Stalingrad could easily be autogen and no one ever would notice it. No points of interest no nothing. And still it looks outdated. 

Also it baffles me how long it still takes to make a new map - with all the satelite data and speed trees and whatnot. It should be possible to only have to work out details and points of interest, special cities etc. and let the rest be made by an algorithm. Especially wood and tundra where there's nothing at all anyway. But the flight sim industry is maybe a few years behind I don't know.

 

Maybe it's too expensive to work such a tech out for using it later in a rather small marked. But I'm sure it would be possible since there was so much improvement in GPS and satelite data in the last decade.

 

@ Feathered, imho this is true as well for BoS. Most of the things on the ground I don't want to see from near. Stalingrad looks like it was made for Red Baron 3D tbh. Hell, the houses aren't even 3D objects but 2D sprites stuck together! In 2016! I still can't get over that one

[ZachariasX]

 

 

Well it's not as if BoX has a very complex ground to simulate

 

What we see is a landsacpe from the past. EVERYTHING has to be "hand drawn". You don't have satelite images to stitch your textures to. Or just use those textures and stitch buildings, trees, etc on it. This is very tedious and time consuming.

 

You can make whole cities by a script however. There are programs who make that.

 

Also, the 300 km vision mentioned in DCS is not the whole strory. You need your entire map PLUS the 300 km vision that you may well have from 10'000 meters up. But at that altitude, th horizon is much farther away, more like 1000 km away. So unless you don't map your playpen on a "tan" geoid of the right size, you'll never have a real horizon.

 

Also only the scene lightning is correct:

 

A flat area is lit at once when sun creeps up over the side of the "board", but on a geoid/shpere, you see a dark front creeping across the ground. You can also (e.g.: morning) climb from darkness into sunlight higher up and you can descend into darkness again as the sun is behind the curvature of the planet again.

 

This is more or less well done ion FSX/Xplane et. al., but forget that in BoX or any any game engine like Unreal etc.

[II./JG77_Manu*]

Also, the 300 km vision mentioned in DCS is not the whole strory. You need your entire map PLUS the 300 km vision that you may well have from 10'000 meters up. But at that altitude, th horizon is much farther away, more like 1000 km away. So unless you don't map your playpen on a "tan" geoid of the right size, you'll never have a real horizon.

Looks pretty much like a real Horizon to me. Of course there is still a minimal haze to cover the furthest distances, but there is haze IRL as well, so you can't definitely see the ground at the horizon from 24km altitude. You can barely see the horizon when at 10km IRL. 

In the end it's a million times better and more realistic then this 9,5km visibility bubble, outside of which there is nothing but cotton wool.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w6FKoyGX4uE

Edited January 9, 2017 by II./JG77_Manu*

[JG4_Sputnik]

Can we agree that it is possible but BoX has just a graphics engine that can't handle todays tech (standards) ?

 

If I see this DCS video, it's just a different ballpark "realism" wise.

Edited January 9, 2017 by JG4_Sputnik

[SCG_Space_Ghost]

-snip-

 

the houses aren't even 3D objects but 2D sprites stuck together

 

-snip-

 

Sort of like the majority of cockpits in Cliffs?

[JG4_Sputnik]

Do you like BoS's cockpits better?

[II./JG77_Manu*]

Do you like BoS's cockpits better?

 

I think they are indeed better. No worlds apart, but better. 

 

Anyway, i think landscape and distant rendering is far more important then the cockpit. I'd gladly take paper-cockpits in BoS, if we'd get the rendering from DCS therefore.

Edited January 9, 2017 by II./JG77_Manu*